finding 19 that slippery floors could establish a constitutional claim based on the fact that the plaintiff 20 used crutches and suffered repeated injuries, of which prison officials were aware, caused 21 by a slippery bathroom floor in a bathroom without adequate handicapped shower 22 facilities
How later courts described this case
- finding 19 that slippery floors could establish a constitutional claim based on the fact that the plaintiff 20 used crutches and suffered repeated injuries, of which prison officials were aware, caused 21 by a slippery bathroom floor in a bathroom without adequate handicapped shower 22 facilities
- holding that “[s]lippery floors without protective measures could create a sufficient danger to warrant relief” where prisoner pleaded fact sufficient to show that prison officials “knowingly subjected him to the risk of falling, thereby exhibiting a deliberate indifference to his well-being”
- holding that where the plaintiff was disabled, had to use crutches, and had fallen many times due to slippery conditions in the shower, and prison officials were aware of all of these facts, the plaintiff could potentially state a deliberate- indifference claim
- holding that pretrial detainee did not establish that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs as to “alleged delays in administering his pain medication, in treating his broken nose, and in providing him with a replacement crutch”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GOODWIN, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting in part, Concurring in part:
I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion which grants any relief to the appellant. It is apparent from the fact set forth by the majority that this prisoner has been amusing himself by engaging in recreational litigation. The trial judges who have been dealing with these cases for the last four years were correct in terminating the cases at the motion stage. Even if every claim made by the prisoner were factually true, no federal constitutional right has been violated by the named defendants, and Rule 12(b) dismissals were properly granted for failure to state a claim. The claims that got beyond Rule 12 were also properly disposed of on the merits. Every disagreement between a prisoner and his keepers about the management of the institution is not a eonsti- *1132 tutional question. I concur m those portions of the careful and conscientious opinion which affirmed the district court, but I cannot concur in federalizing in constitutional terms the garden variety grievances described by this disgruntled former officer, now experiencing detention in admittedly less than ideal circumstances.